Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Attendance can be found Here

Co-Chair and Key Participant information can be found on the Agenda found Here

Discussion items


TimeItemWhoNotes
13:45HousekeepingCarolAgenda orientation and attendance.
13:50Concept MapAll

Summary of Q1 and Q2.

Concept Map taken off normative track, goal is to have it normative in R5 while drawing a clear line between Concept Map and CodeSytsem Supplement.

Are there requirements for both resources (Concept Map and CodeSytsem Supplement), or can we get away with only one?

These are clearly distinct resources with specific purposes, but it is true that they can currently be cross purposed with varying degrees of complexity.

Proposed change to CodeSystem Supplement: Add an invariant to constrain CodeSystem Supplement so that supplements can not be drawn from other code systems via taking out the codeing datatype.

PCLOCD would violate this invariant, as such this change may not be reasonable.

Need to define the resources in such away that it is clear what the intent for each is, while recognizing that people may choose to use these cross purpose these resources in cases where it makes sense in for their specific implementation.

Discussion on ISO country codes on how these would best be represented in both Concept Map and CodeSytsem Supplement.

Rob H: Resolve the open tracker items, and not address the Concept Map and CodeSytsem Supplement issues at this time. These will work themselves out as implementer begin to use them. Update the documentation to indicate the intent of what resource is for, recognizing that these resources may be cross purposed by implementers based on their implementation requirements.

Rob M:

  1. Not changing Code System at all
  2. Major improvements to documentation to clarify that Code system is a Code system supplement
  3. Do a much better job of what is in 4.8.8.
  4. Series of examples to document where CodeSystem Supplement will be used
  5. Change Concept Map Equivalence Value Set and make it extensible

Senthil: Clarify ConceptMap as 'Mappings between code system concepts are only intended to be defined in the context of a particular business usage for translations to enable interoperability." - add the underlined phrase. Rename Equivalence type to something else (i.e. Map Relationship Type and make its value set extensible.

Continue with a separate call for this discussion with a defined end date.

14:52VSD FHIR Profile Project Proposal OverviewCarolOverview of VSD FHIR Profile Project Proposal



Action items

Set up three calls (previously at 8:00am Eastern) to work on the wording of the resources. Robert Hausam

  • No labels